GAO E’act,Sheet f’or the Honorable Vi<: Fazio, House of Representatives MILITARY BASES Information on Air Logistics Centers 3 IllI 142398 RELEASED RESTRICTED --Not to be released outside the General Accounting Once unless specifically approved by the Offlce of Congressional Belations. United States ‘GAO General Accounting Office Wmhington, D.C. 20548 National Security and International Affairs Division B-240995 September 10,lQQO The Honorable Vie Fazio House of Representatives As you requested, we obtained selected data on the performance and capacity for depot maintenance operations at the five Air Force Air Logistics Centers (ALC). The five ALCS are Ogden AU=, Hill Air Force Base, Utah; Oklahoma City ALC, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Sacramento ALC,McClellan Air Force Base, California; San Antonio AX, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas; and Warner Robins ALC, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. Each AU: is assigned responsibility for maintaining, modifying, and Results in Brief repairing specific types of aircraft, engines, and reparable parts. The ALCShave different missions and facilities and consequently cross com- parisons between them are of limited value, according to Air Force officials. Some indicators of performance are the number of aircraft on which maintenance is completed, the number of engines and other items repaired, and labor hours expended annually on depot maintenance. For example, in fiscal year 1989, the number of aircraft on which mainte- nance was completed ranged from 62 at the San Antonio AL,Cto 291 at the Ogden ALC;however, the type of aircraft were different, and the nature and extent of maintenance performed may have varied. Only two ALCSrepair aircraft engines. In fiscal year 1989, 5,029 engines were repaired at the San Antonio ALC and 1,372 were repaired at the Oklahoma City AJX. Some indicators of capacity are the size of maintenance facilities and the depot maintenance work force. For example, the square footage of facili- ties, such as hangars, machine shops, and test facilities, ranged from 2.7 million at the Warner Robins AK! to 3.9 million at the San Antonio ALC. The work years expended on depot maintenance ranged from about 6,000 at the Sacramento ALC to about 8,000 at the Oklahoma City ALC. The Department of Defense is currently evaluating depot maintenance operations to determine how best to lower the overall cost while retaining essential operating capability. The Secretaries of the military services are scheduled to submit their coordinated long-range plan to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics by October Page 1 GAO/NSIADW-287FS Air Logistic Centers B-2409Bi5 1, 1990. One option being considered is to increase the work performed by one military service for another. The Air Force is considering the pos- sibility of reducing or perhaps removing all depot maintenance activity from one ALC. Air Force Logistics Command officials told us that per- formance is not a major factor in their analysis of options to reduce or possibly remove aircraft maintenance work from one ALC. The data contained in this fact sheet were obtained at the Air Force Scopeand Logistics Command in Dayton, Ohio. We did not verify or analyze the Methodology data or question the methodology used to compile it. Because of our lim- ited objective, we did not determine the reasons for, or the significance of, changes or trends in data. Based on discussions with Air Force Logis- tics Command officials and our review of documentation, we judg- mentally selected which indicators of performance and capacity on which to collect data. We conducted our work during August 1990. Because of the short time available to complete our work, we did not obtain written agency comments on this fact sheet. However, Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials did review our draft and cautioned us about comparing ALCS based on performance data. Air Force Logistics Command officials stated that they do not generally make direct comparisons because of the unique work loads, operations, and specialized facilities of each Center. For example, officials said it is difficult to compare the B-1B and F-16 aircraft on selected performance indicators because of inherent differences in systems, the types of main- tenance problems encountered, and the years of available maintenance experience. These officials noted that while comparing a Center’s actual performance against its plan is an appropriate management tool for the Center Commander, it may not be meaningful to compare centers that maintain different systems. Appendix I provides data on indicators of production, productivity, quality, resources and capacity, and financial information. Appendix II briefly describes the depot maintenance missions assigned to the five ALCS. Appendix III lists the major contributors to this fact sheet. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this fact sheet until 30 days from its issue date. At that Y time we will send copies to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Service Committees and other interested parties. Page 2 GAO/NSIAIHO-287FS Air Logistic Centers E240995 Please contact me at (202) 276-8412 if you or your staff have any ques- tions concerning this fact sheet. Sincerely yours, Donna M. Heivilin Director, Logistics Issues Page 3 GAO/NSIADw)-287F’S Air Loglatlc Centera Contents Letter Appendix I Depot Maintenance Production ii 7 Data for Air Force Air EayGtivitY 8 Logistics Centers Resources and Capacity 8 Financial Information 10 Appendix II Depot Maintenance Missions Assigned to the Air Logistics Centers Appendix III Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Tables Table I. 1: Aircraft Work Completed Table 1.2: Reparable Work Completed Table 1.3: Engine Work Completed Table 1.4: Direct Production Hours Table 1.6: Percent of Aircraft Maintenance Completed on Time Table 1.6: Average Daily Hours of Direct Labor Per 8 Maintenance Employee Table 1.7: Estimated Productivity Savings Table 1.8: Customer Quality Complaint Rates Table 1.9: Maintenance Facilities Table I. 10: Maintenance Equipment Table I.1 1 Fiscal Year 1989 Depot Maintenance Work Force Table I. 12: Fiscal Year 1989 Financial Operating Results 10 Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-80487PS Air Lqjlatic Centem Content4 Y Abbreviations ALC Air Logistics Center TRC Technology Repair Center Page 5 GAO/NSIAl’WO-287FS Air Logistic Centers ‘. Appendix I Depot MaintenanceData for &r ForceAir LogisticsCenters This appendix presents selected performance and capacity data on depot maintenance operations at the five AIL%. The data show the main- tenance work accomplished by AIX personnel. Data does not include work accomplished by contractors and through interservice agreements. Air Force officials cautioned against making direct comparisons among the ALCS on individual performance indicators because of differences in work loads and specialized operations assigned to each ALC. Table I.1 shows the number of aircraft on which maintenance work was Production completed. Maintenance work includes programmed depot maintenance, inspections, and modifications. Table 1.1: Aircraft Work Completed .Fiscal _---- mar --. Air Loglrtlcs Center 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Ogden 445 492 340 256 291 Oklahoma City 173 215 191 148 126 Sacramento 295 264 243 224 222 San Antonio 67 71 81 64 62 Warner Robins 296 207 158 125 189 Table I.2 shows the number of reparables on which work was com- pleted. Reparable items are subsystems and components of weapon sys- tems and equipment, such as avionics, life support equipment, and flight control instruments. The Air Force also refers to reparables as exchangeables. Table 1.2:Reparable Work Completed Items in thousands Fiscal year Air Logistics Center 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Oaden 152 160 165 128 119 Oklahoma City 287 291 276 212 195 Sacramento 201 193 184 150 155 San Antonio 186 230 257 167 133 Warner Robins 230 219 206 158 159 Table I.3 shows the number of engines repaired by ALC. Only Oklahoma City and San Antonio ALCS repair aircraft engines. Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-90-287FS Air Logistic Centers Depot Maintenance Data for Air Force Air Logbticr Centere Table 1.3: Engine Work Completed Fiscal year Air Loaistics Center 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 Oklahoma City 1,271 1,573 1,250 1,093 1,372 San Antonioa 7,031 7,034 6,697 5,575 5,029 ‘San Antonio engine work load includes engine modules and gas turbine engines Table I.4 shows the actual hours of direct labor expended annually on depot maintenance. Table 1.4: Direct Productlon Hour8 Labor hours in thousands Fiscal year Alr Loolatlcs Center 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 Ogden 8,512 8,888 8,370 7,412 7,980 Oklahoma City 9,780 10,560 10,361 8,873 8,657 Sacramento 7,578 7,905 7,686 6,771 6,710 San Antonio 9,281 9,637 9,566 8,542 9.107 Warner Robins 7,693 7,914 7,752 7,037 7,837 Table I.6 shows the extent to which each ALC completed scheduled main- Productivity tenance on time. It compares the number of aircraft completed on schedule to the total number worked on. We were unable to readily obtain data for fiscal years 1986 and 1986. Table 1.5: Percent of Alrcrrft Maintenance Completed on Time Fiscal year Air Logistics Center 1987 1988 1989 Ogden 100 100 99 Oklahoma City 100 97 99 Sacramento 95 96 100 San Antonio 82 40 35 Warner Robins 88 34 46 Table I.6 provides a measure of labor productivity in terms of daily hours of output per maintenance employee, including mechanics, man- agers, and support staff. Hours of output are based on an estimate of direct labor hours needed to complete maintenance tasks. Page 7 GAO/NNAD-90-287FS Air Logistic Centers Appendix I Depot Maintenance Data for Air Force Air Logbtlce Centers Table 1.8: Average Dally Hour8 of Direct Labor Per Maintenance Employee Fiscal year Air Logistics Center 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 Ogden 3.91 4.00 3.96 3.86 3.79 Oklahoma Citv 3.48 3.60 3.94 3.84 3.78 Sacramento 4.12 4.08 4.11 3.84 3.92 San Antonio 3.87 4.13 4.20 3.87 3.96 Warner Robins 3.92 4.00 4.05 3.90 3.94 Table I.7 shows the Arc-reported productivity savings resulting from a number of programs, including employee quality teams, work methods improvements, and capital investments to incorporate new technologies. Table 1.7: Estimated Productivity Savings Dollars in millions Fiscal year Air Logistics Center 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 Ogden $33 $35 $42 $52 $80 Oklahoma City 33 37 40 13 21 Sacramento 21 39 47 29 49 San Antonio 141 66 117 162 144 Warner Robins 33 58 55 69 66 Table I.8 shows the number of reparables reported defective by the cus- Quality tomer (user) expressed as a percent of total units repaired during the fiscal year. Table 1.8:Customer Quality Complaint Rates Fiscal year Air Logistics Center 1988 1987 1988 1989 Ogden 1.72 1.66 1.65 1.66 Oklahoma City .81 .72 .84 .88 --___- Sacramento 1.46 1.60 1.44 1.31 San Antonio .50 .44 .61 .59 Warner Robins 2.11 1.97 2.30 2.16 Table I.9 shows the value and size of maintenance facilities, which Resourcesand include hangars, machine shops, and test facilities. Cost figures are esti- Capacity ” mated replacement costs. Page 8 GAO/NSIAD90-287FS Air Logistic Centers Appendix I Depot Maintenance Data for Air Form Air Iqi.etics Centers Table 1.9: Malntenanco Facllltlss Dollars in millions Buildings/area Average age (Square feet in of facilities Air Logistics Center millions) (Years) Replacement cost Ogden 302j3.6 34 $316 Oklahoma City 4513.3 33 806 Sacramento 12813.8 28 634 San Antonio E/3.9 34 400 Warner Robins 6812.7 28 - 207 Table 1.10 shows the average age and estimated replacement cost of the industrial plant equipment used in maintenance. Equipment includes such machinery as spot welders, drilling machines, lathes, grinders, and special test equipment. Table 1.10: Mslntenance Equipment Dollars in millions Average age of equipment Air Loaistlcs Center (Years) Reolacement cost Oaden 11 $585 Oklahoma City 16 477 Sacramento 13 435 San Antonio 11 460 Warner Robins 11 545 Table I. 11 shows the total number of workyears expended on depot maintenance during fiscal year 1989. The work force includes mechanics, machinists, welders, and electricians as well as managers and administrative staff. Table 1.11 Fiscal Year 1989 Depot Maintenance Work Force Air Loglstlcs Center Civilian Military Total Ogden 6,696 177 6,873 Oklahoma City 8,085 115 8,200 Sacramento 6,183 93 6,276 San Antonio 8,022 61 8,083 Warner Robins 6.605 66 6.671 Page 9 GAO/NSIAIMO-287FS Air Logistic Centers Appendix I Depot Maintenance D~tui for Air Force Air Logbtlcs Centers Table I. 12 shows total revenues from depot maintenance performed by Financial Information ALCpersonnel and related expenses for each Center. Operating result (gain or loss) is a reflection of how closely an ALC met its financial plan. Table 1.12: Fiscal Year 1999 Financial Operating Rerultr Dollars in millions Net operatln Alr Loalstlcs Center Revenues EXPeIWe8 row Pt Ogden- $349 - $368 ($19) Oklahoma City 530 577 (47) Sacramento 367 377 (10) San Antonio 478 530 (52) Warner Robins 395 436 (41) Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate operating deficit. Page 10 GAO/NSIAD~ZS7F8 Air Logistk Centem Appendix II Depot Mtitenance MissionsAssignedto the Air Logistics Centers Ogden ALC, Hill Air Force The Ogden ALCrepairs and modifies the F-4, F-16, and C-130 aircraft (a Base, Utah recent addition). The Center also maintains Air Force missile systems and components, including the Peacekeeper, Minuteman, Maverick, and Sidewinder. Ogden is the technology repair center’ (TX) for weapons, air munitions, landing gears, reconnaissance/photographic equipment, and training and simulation equipment. Oklahoma City ALC, Oklahoma City ALCis the source of repair for the B-LB, B-62, C-136, and Tinker Air Force Base, E-3 aircraft. The Center has also been assigned repair responsibility for the B-2 Stealth bomber. It is also one of the two Centers (San Antonio is Oklahoma the other) that repairs and overhauls jet engines. Oklahoma City is the TRCfor automatic flight controls, airframe and engine-related compo- nents, engine instruments, and oxygen components. Sacramento ALC, Sacramento ALC is the designated source of repair for the F-l 11, A-7, McClellan Air Force Base, and A-10 aircraft. The Center recently began F-16 modification work and has been assigned repair responsibility for the Advanced Tactical California Fighter. Sacramento is the TRC for electrical components, flight control instruments, tactical shelters, and ground communications-electronics equipment. San Antonio ALC, Kelly The San Antonio AW maintains and repairs the B-62 and C-6 aircraft. Air Force Base, Texas The Center has been designated the source of repair for the C-17 air- craft. The Center also repairs and overhauls a large number of engines and engine modules. The Center is the TRC for electronic aerospace ground equipment, electro-mechanical support equipment, nuclear com- ponents, and automatic test equipment. Warner Robins ALC, Warner Robins AU repairs and modifies the F-16, C-141, and C-130 air- Robins Air Force Base, craft. The Center is the TRC for life support systems, propellers, and air- borne electronics. The airborne electronics work load includes more than Georgia 300 avionics systems and almost 10,000 parts and components. ‘Under the technology repair center concept, selected homogeneous maintenance work loads are assigned to a single center rather than maintaining capabilities at multiple locations. Page 11 GAO/NSlAD-90-287FS Air Logistic Centers Appendix III ” * Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Joan B. Hawkins, Assistant Director National Security and Raymond C. Cooksey, Evaluator-in-Charge International Affairs Division, Washington, DC. Bruce D. Fairbairn, Site Senior Cincinnati Regional Laurie A. Rossvanes, Evaluator Office (398060) Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-90-287FS Air Logidc Centers ‘I’t~ltq)hollt’ 202-2756241
Military Bases: Information on Air Logistics Centers
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-09-10.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)